Levinas's Account of the Relationship Between Totality and Infinity
Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority, is regarded one of Levinas's most influential work on phenomenology. It is evident that his philosophical thinking was much influenced by Husserl and Heidegger's phenomenology. Most of his argument on totality and infinity based on to establishing truly free, independent self. He used phenomenological method to explain the two basic kind of relationship to the world. For him in term of being as totality is an ontological relationship which centralise our experience, (be it the being of our subjective cogito or the being of the immanent, finite cosmos). According this perspective it is a being with in self. And the other relationship is metaphysical which decentralise our experience and opens as to the infinite otherness of transcendence. The totality is related to the philosophy of nature, which through human subject can be accorded its place in the totalising scheme of things, the infinity approve the primacy of an ethical philosophy. It shows how man's relationship to man can transcend the natural rapport of ownership, power and belongingness, in search of be good beyond being. his argument intended to show distinction between self and other, politics and ethics, totality and infinity. In the sense each of this pair make the latter term possible the former term, without including the reality the former term into itself. In relation to self and other Levinas's argument is not intended for altruism, but in reality the view of ethics imply on dichotomy between self and other, however for ethic of infinite responsibility that make self justly independent selves possible.
For Levinas ethic is movement beyo...
... middle of paper ...
... familiar after second world war, totalitarianism. Which reflects total war. Furthermore it stresses on that nothing to be left out. Total war, it means use of any and means all to prosecute the war. In a sense not making differences between enemy either civilians or soldier. In another word totalitarianism means every life is under control of state. Levinas argues that war makes an order, which no one can escape it from the war. Nothing hereafter is exterior, wars does not evident to the exteriority on the transcendence in the face of other. Morality, is opposite of this, is that one need to maintain exteriority, one need to preserve the other as other. To proceed into moral realms. He said that to continued from the experience of totality breaks up, a situation condition itself. This kind of situation is light of exteriority or transcendence in the face of other.
War is seen as a universal concept that often causes discomfort and conflict in relation to civilians. As they are a worrying universal event that has occurred for many decades now, they posed questions to society about human's nature and civilization. Questions such as is humanity sane or insane? and do humans have an obsession with destruction vs creation. These questions are posed from the two anti-war texts; Dr Strangelove by Stanley Kubrick and Slaughterhouse Five written by Kurt Vonnegut.
Laws exist to protect life and property; however, they are only as effective as the forces that uphold them. War is a void that exists beyond the grasps of any law enforcing agency and It exemplifies humankind's most desperate situation. It is an ethical wilderness exempt from civilized practices. In all respects, war is a primitive extension of man. Caputo describes the ethical wilderness of Vietnam as a place "lacking restraints, sanctioned to kill, confronted by a hostile country and a relentless enemy, we sank into a brutish state." Without boundaries, there is only a biological moral c...
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
The analysis over Crawford’s definition for Just War Theory can reinforces the statement above. Crawford’s argument talks about the prevention of greater harm as long as “moral judgments about right action [are] rooted” toward each particular component of the definition. However, it was noted that Crawford’s conclusion about terrorist wasn’t completely true and excluding them from the Just War Theory was more complicated. Byford uses different arguments to explain the difficulty of excluding terrorists as states. Within his comparison there are different war times when states acted as radical as terrorist but we never labeled them as
For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction.
Two totalitarian systems, Communism and Nazism were the two most frightening totalitarian political systems in the history of mankind. They were the systems most brutal to its political adversaries but also to its own people and other races and/or religions. Unfortunately our own country, Croatia faced both of them during the 20th century, and some of bad influences we still feel today.In my essay I will do my best to examine these two totalitarian systems, describe their nature in essence and answer question "How did Communism and Nazism influence the societies".
Quinn, Edward. “Totalitarianism.” History in Literature, Facts On File, 2004. Bloom's Literature, online.infobase.com/HRC/Search/Details/44808?q=doublethink 1984. Accessed 14 Nov.
In order to explicate Sartre’s notion of intersubjectivity I will follow the progression that Sartre takes in Being and Nothingness. I will first distinguish between “being-for-itself” and “being-for-others”. Second, I will provide an explication of the subject’s encounter with the Other as an object. Third, I will explain the significance of “the look”. Here I will show how the look provides the foundation for the self. I will also show how the look of the Other affects the subject’s freedom.
108, 153). Thus, totalitarianism was not issued from a lack of Enlightenment 'dialectic,' rather it was issued from movements defining themselves in reformists’ opposition, philosophies’ laudably realistic spirit. From the onset, this spirit focused on individual autonomy worldly conditions the most fundamental being accountable power, civil liberty, as well as social
One who is righteous, pure, and ethical obtains a solid moral compass. A lack of morality in an individual results in insanity. This is shown in Timothy Findley’s The Wars; the war corrupts individual’s integrity which ultimately leads to their insanity. Robert Ross and Rodwell depict lunacy as war demoralizes them. As individuals receive commands that violate their virtues, as a repercussion a person will become irrational.
. Its most famous defender is Descartes, who argues that as a subject of conscious thought and experience, he cannot consist simply of spatially extended matter. His essential nature must be non-m...
Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.
The history of the 20th century can be defined by the biographies of six men: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, and Josef Stalin. Each of these men had a lasting significant involvement in world affairs. This essay will focus on the significance each individual had on the ideologies of Democracy and Totalitarianism. Four of the six individuals were leaders of a totalitarianistic state, and three of these led a communist country. Also four of the six leaders were in power during the Second World War. The profiles of these six men formed the world that we live in today.
For instance, Hobbes painted a very negative picture of human nature, and conceptualized the natural condition (the condition before a commonwealth is established) as “war of every man against every man” in which human lives are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Accordingly, in maintaining order in the state, politics has always raised the question of the proper extent of an authority, and the criteria of human nature and morality. The work of Thomas Hobbes provides deep insight into the connection between human nature, ethics, and politics. Hobbes stated that the state is the result of a pact between free citizens submitting to the existing political order. In Leviathan, he contends that humans are not by nature created for political life, and he likens the state to an artificial creature. He further regards politics as also being artificial and divergent from anything that is natural in form like human nature. The peace that individuals seek within the chaos arises from this very negative viewpoint on human
War is an interaction in which two or more opposing forces have a struggle of wills. It is by no means a stranger to us, even if we have not had the tragedy of having to live through it. Whether in movies or real life accounts or war experiences, we are well exposed to the horrors of human crimes, suffering and destruction. Many feel that such depictions are usually sensationalized in order to get an audience, but in my opinion, war can never by justified. Despite the common argument that war brings about liberalism, it saddles along economic problems, a loss of lives and sufferings.